[governance] multistakeholderism

[JFC Morfin]

At 15:21 21/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote:
>On 8/21/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> > The real issue we have, IMHO,
> > is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and
> > try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as
> > obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again.
>
>While not a personal attack, the phrase "outdated perceptions" is an
>empty attack, a kind of name-calling but without giving any real
>reasons for why something is 'outdated' and why, if outdated, it
>should not be relevant.

Paul,

this would only mean that our world consensus was less relevant than 
this list consensus. With all the due respect this list's merits, 
there is a big problem of publicity. The entire world knows the WSIS 
consensus, only the members of this list know there could be 
sometimes a consensus here. What is the proposed solution?

>Even if prior "preparations" had the full
>status of constitutional provisions, they would (a) still be subject
>to revisiting and debate and (b) be subject at all times to being
>construed in light of human rights law, and (c) subject to attack
>(even if "prior preparations" were a full-fledged constitutional
>provision) based on noncompliance with human rights and democracy law.

I agree. But I frankly think we can do better than attacking our own 
basis, friends, positions, etc.

>The odd thing is that some people state that technology per se, which
>has no legal status whatsoever,

:-) you mean that the world, the cosmos, languages, have come with a 
legal status. Except if we are God the Father we can hardly claim that?

>  is "inevitable" or has "changed the
>world" and there's nothing that can be done about it,

To the countrary, I explain you what is to be done, what we do, how 
we win, and how we are too much alone .... because we can also make 
our own errors.

>while others
>argue human rights & democracy, which have the highest possible legal
>status and prior agreement, are problematic or even "outdated."  This
>is truly puzzling.  While there's no silver bullet in politics or
>governance, the highest laws of human rights and democracy are the
>very best tools available in the legal/governance/due process sense.

If you can find a Court to juge. The juge we have are 7 billions 
people who use their mobiles. Techies use to call the market because 
they are paid by merchants. Nevertheless they are real people, not 
just motions.

>What might be called internet techno-determinism is hardly beyond a
>witch's spell or placebo -- it works only if people are induced to
>believe in it.

mmmm.... we can debate this for years, in using our poorly 
techno-determined e-mail system.

> > Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to
> > deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society?
>
>If the highest laws (human rights) are not taken fully seriously, why
>would a aspirational document like an IGF mission be much more than a
>filler for filing cabinets?

I will take human right activists seriously the day they will fight 
for e-Human Rights. A 31st article on human rights in cyberspace. 
Until then there is no coherent basis for any action. No ground to 
protect e-privacy, nothing to define NN. Sorry, but discussing 
off-nets rights is of no use on the nets.

> > Is it a
> > place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people?
>
>Your proposal to develop something is just fine, at least if it
>doesn't exclude other vectors of development.  But I would point out
>that 95% of the real work of politics and of democracy and of
>governance can be described as TALKING (debate, reminders, working
>toward agreement, etc)  That being said I think you are completely
>correct to point to how much can easily be accomplished once a group
>or subgroup accept a mutual goal and work toward it.  The thing is,
>essentially all the nations of the world have accepted human rights
>and democracy at the highest levels, declared them universal, and
>commanded all members to work towards their further implementation.

Do you really believe this?

>To the extent this highest command is disregarded by some and/or not
>taken as seriously as necessary, it's hard to complain when some prior
>Geneva declaration or document doesn't function like a Bible, Torah or
>Koran.

What I observed is that people on this list question the documents 
that legitimate their own existence as a coalition.

Everyone is involved. Everyone is concerned. Everyone can change the 
world, moreover the cyberworld. Yet there is no e-humanright guidance 
provided. We do what we can. But I m sure we could do much more if 
(1) we followed the WSIS decisions as a common current guidance 
(starting knowing and building on them) and (2) got a clear road-map 
as a 31st HR (proposed) article.

> > I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few
> > fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own
> > outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do
> > think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN,
> > and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at
> > the BoT) can achieve much.
>
>You say "effective forces".  The highest laws are human rights laws.

I wish you would be true in real life, and that e-human rights had 
been agreed upon.

>If there are "effective forces" stronger than that they are either (1)
>true FORCE or (2) illegitimate politically, or both.  Here again, I
>would like to know exactly what the nature of the force is, where its
>authority comes from, and its nature as force?  I am not ignorant of
>what you allude to, but upon examination these "forces" evaporate.  If
>they have any legitimate force, in a conflict between the highest laws
>of human rights and any lower laws, which do  you think properly
>prevails, IF WE USE REASON and the LAW?

To use reason and the law means to call upon police forces to 
reasonable enforce the law, or if you don't have a police force on 
reasonable people support (ex. Gandhi).

> > Where are your guns? How do you want to
> > impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the
> > technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social
> > engineering?
>
>In at least the name of human rights and/or democracy, in the 20th
>century alone guns have been marshalled numerous times.  In WWII in
>particular, it seems the side more friendly to democracy won.

With a few guns, a few dollars, too :-) where are ours ?

>Something like 300 million people have died in various wars either
>closely or loosely connected to settling the question of whether the
>people will be in charge via demoracy and also WHO constitutes "the
>people."  Is it just white men?  Does it include women?  Slaves?
>
>Nowadays, it has been a settled question that "the people" MEANS
>EVERYONE, no exceptions.  The people = the people.

Where are they in the IGF structure?

>Oops.  Along comes the corporate governance "stakeholder" approach,
>living mostly in corporations but spreading to government and some
>NGOs.
>
>According to the stakeholder approach, which defines who matters and
>who gets a voice, the ones who matter, or at least matter more or the
>most, are the "stakeholders" or those who have an INTEREST, usually an
>economic interest, in the outcome.

The elite, money, industry, etc. ploutocracy.

>One fundamental reason stakeholder approaches are so disturbing is
>that they take a settled question -- a question settled at the cost of
>many millions of lives that asserted only the human dignity and
>equality of ALL people -- and says, in effect:  The people does NOT
>mean "all" the people.  The people means just selected stakeholders
>who know how to follow a tight agenda that's set for them. This is why
>it's "back to aristocracy" which is rule by less than all the people.

I am sorry. This is not what they said. This is what you guys accept. 
What are your reach out efforts? What is your strategy for this CS 
coalition to count millions members? You are embarassed about a few 
people representing billions people. We all know that democracy 
cannot work in the cyberspace, from the very first ICANN election. 
So, everyone tris to find a way around. That is fine and 
stakeholderism is most probably a part of the response. But let not 
call this democracy, or be candid and say it is an Athenian 
democracy. Again how many political parties, how many trade-unions, 
how many consumer ogranizations, how many cultural associations, how 
many churches, etc. etc. are members of this dynamic coalition or 
just represented, five years after Tunis?

>Even if the government is "represented" in any fraction like 1/3, 1/3,
>1/3, and the government is presumed to represent all the people, the
>corporate fraction as well as the civil society fraction (which can
>only represent its members at best, and not all) constitutes a
>dilution of democracy. Instead of democracy at full strength, it is
>reduced to 1/3 or less.
>
>If democratic mechanisms don't work, it may be due to corruption or it
>may be, if opinion is divided on a non-constitutional question, that
>it OUGHT to be stymied for the time being due to lack of a majority.

No.
Democracy is outdated because it calls for too many things to be 
mastered by every individual. This does not mean the concept is 
inadequate, but that its embodyment must adapt. This is what we 
started doing at the WSIS. If we do not follow upon our own 
progresses, we will not suceed. Polycracy is when I can say as a 
citizen I do trust those who are competent to ask me when they have 
to reach a decision which concerns me, and to protect me otherwise. 
Policracy is built as a multi-subsidiarity. My protection carried 
under my control at the right place by the right people.

>The answer to "inefficiencies" of democracy is not to alter the most
>fundamental aspect of democracy: that We the people means ALL the
>people.

Does not help much if these people are manipulated by social 
engineering paid by mechants using democratic voting systems to 
control Govs. We first need to free the people from their machines so 
they may empower themselves in the today environment. Law cannot do 
anything against ruling machines.

>The answer to perceived 'inefficiencies" of democracy is not to make
>it all efficient.  U.S. President Harry Truman got at least one thing
>right:  "If you want efficiency you'll get a dictatorship."

This is where USA are not as much civilized as Greeks. If you want 
efficiency you need intelligence.

>There is only one source of power they do not have:
> > technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard
> > technical issues, any form of social advancement, and
> > users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not
> > really see what you may hope
>
>There's no MEANINGFUL technical speech at the level of governance that
>is not motivated by some higher value or principle or law, even if
>that idea is not stated.  You speak of technical progress like it is
>unconnected to higher principles,

You assert things without knowing here.
http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations
You are welcome to add your own contributions.

>and that is not true at all.  Even
>if the higher principles, instead of the legally binding ones of
>democracy, are business values of "efficiency" "speed" or perceived
>pragmatism, those are all higher principles that motivate the
>seemingly "technical" stuff.

You seem to assert that innefficiency is a democratic value.

>In a democracy, which is to say in a free country or world, business
>values like efficiency ARE entitled to due weight, but only at the
>second level of analysis.  The first level of analysis, too often
>skipped because the typical answer is "no problem here" is the
>question:  "Is this proposal going to kill some or all of us, or take
>away our freedom, democracy or fundamental rights?"
>
>Some  internet proposals like stakeholderism are controversial
>because, like all too many things, they skip the first question above
>and proceed on to secondary values like efficiency and business
>values.

Agreed. This is why they should be updated.

>The correct approach, assuming one wishes to live in a free world of
>democracy, is like a typical hiring process;  First, resume's are
>weeded through and those clearly not qualified, like those few but
>important proposals not consistent with democracy and therefore not
>qualified for it, are eliminated. After that, the smaller details of
>specific qualifications, rates of pay, efficiency of work and so forth
>can be discussed with the candidates remaining.

This would mean that someone is organizing the hiring. This is why 
democracy is outdated by polycracy. i.e. not the government of the 
people by the reps of the people, but the life of the people 
concerted by the people.

>One should not belittle "dying for glory."  Hundreds of millions of
>people have done that regarding democracy and greater democracy. If
>the internet cannot be made democratic than the strength historically
>of the desire for greater democracy will fuel civil unrest at the
>least if not terrorism/wars as it consistently has for the last three
>centuries.

I understand what you fight for. This is glorious. But I am afraid 
you are not fighting in the proper way if you only fight this way.

>But always those with 'better ideas' be they experts or dictators,
>want to inflict their ideas on all without their consent -- it's
>always "for their own good."  A decent respect for humanity ought to
>guide us in favor of democracy as a guiding star for all of our
>actions, even if only out of fear for the deadly consequences
>historically of not doing so.

You can fight for the glory of the people, and/or you can fight for 
the victory of the people.

The three options are helpful. None can win alone.

Cheers.
jfc


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t